Will my employers contract hold up in court?

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
7
down vote

favorite
2












When I started a new job back in July of 2017, I signed a contract that had the following bindings or restrictions if I was ever to leave the company:



  • Cannot work for a competitor within 25 miles of current companies location for the next two years

  • Cannot offer my services to any organization within 25 miles of current companies location for the next two years

Now, when mentioned “my services” this can be related to my profession of website design.



This contract seems incredibly binding, 2 years in length, and I’m looking to see if it would actually hold up in an Arizona court.







share|improve this question





















  • What does your company do and what services do they provide? What is your role (i.e. internal work or work for customers).
    – sharur
    Aug 6 at 19:26











  • I am a web Designer, and the company offers website design, software development, and IT services
    – Alex S.
    Aug 6 at 19:36










  • Unfortunately, I think the contract is likely to be upheld. You are potentially a direct competitor, so that's a legitimate business interest and their geographic and time restrictions seem reasonable.
    – sharur
    Aug 6 at 19:43







  • 2




    Just as a note in the future, I would not have signed this unless a clause was added to specifically restrict going after current customers, customers within the past 12 months, or customers with open bids at the time of termination. This means you won't work with their customers but you can still work. I think it is unreasonable to restrict all work in the field, and a judge may side with you on that.
    – Ron Beyer
    Aug 6 at 22:40






  • 1




    @Andy: miles not minutes; but the reasonableness of that restriction is up to the trier of fact, individuals can have differing opinions (for example, I practically do that commute every work day, and I don't find it unreasonable at all).
    – sharur
    Aug 6 at 23:25














up vote
7
down vote

favorite
2












When I started a new job back in July of 2017, I signed a contract that had the following bindings or restrictions if I was ever to leave the company:



  • Cannot work for a competitor within 25 miles of current companies location for the next two years

  • Cannot offer my services to any organization within 25 miles of current companies location for the next two years

Now, when mentioned “my services” this can be related to my profession of website design.



This contract seems incredibly binding, 2 years in length, and I’m looking to see if it would actually hold up in an Arizona court.







share|improve this question





















  • What does your company do and what services do they provide? What is your role (i.e. internal work or work for customers).
    – sharur
    Aug 6 at 19:26











  • I am a web Designer, and the company offers website design, software development, and IT services
    – Alex S.
    Aug 6 at 19:36










  • Unfortunately, I think the contract is likely to be upheld. You are potentially a direct competitor, so that's a legitimate business interest and their geographic and time restrictions seem reasonable.
    – sharur
    Aug 6 at 19:43







  • 2




    Just as a note in the future, I would not have signed this unless a clause was added to specifically restrict going after current customers, customers within the past 12 months, or customers with open bids at the time of termination. This means you won't work with their customers but you can still work. I think it is unreasonable to restrict all work in the field, and a judge may side with you on that.
    – Ron Beyer
    Aug 6 at 22:40






  • 1




    @Andy: miles not minutes; but the reasonableness of that restriction is up to the trier of fact, individuals can have differing opinions (for example, I practically do that commute every work day, and I don't find it unreasonable at all).
    – sharur
    Aug 6 at 23:25












up vote
7
down vote

favorite
2









up vote
7
down vote

favorite
2






2





When I started a new job back in July of 2017, I signed a contract that had the following bindings or restrictions if I was ever to leave the company:



  • Cannot work for a competitor within 25 miles of current companies location for the next two years

  • Cannot offer my services to any organization within 25 miles of current companies location for the next two years

Now, when mentioned “my services” this can be related to my profession of website design.



This contract seems incredibly binding, 2 years in length, and I’m looking to see if it would actually hold up in an Arizona court.







share|improve this question













When I started a new job back in July of 2017, I signed a contract that had the following bindings or restrictions if I was ever to leave the company:



  • Cannot work for a competitor within 25 miles of current companies location for the next two years

  • Cannot offer my services to any organization within 25 miles of current companies location for the next two years

Now, when mentioned “my services” this can be related to my profession of website design.



This contract seems incredibly binding, 2 years in length, and I’m looking to see if it would actually hold up in an Arizona court.









share|improve this question












share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 2 days ago









feetwet♦

13.8k93783




13.8k93783









asked Aug 6 at 19:05









Alex S.

412




412











  • What does your company do and what services do they provide? What is your role (i.e. internal work or work for customers).
    – sharur
    Aug 6 at 19:26











  • I am a web Designer, and the company offers website design, software development, and IT services
    – Alex S.
    Aug 6 at 19:36










  • Unfortunately, I think the contract is likely to be upheld. You are potentially a direct competitor, so that's a legitimate business interest and their geographic and time restrictions seem reasonable.
    – sharur
    Aug 6 at 19:43







  • 2




    Just as a note in the future, I would not have signed this unless a clause was added to specifically restrict going after current customers, customers within the past 12 months, or customers with open bids at the time of termination. This means you won't work with their customers but you can still work. I think it is unreasonable to restrict all work in the field, and a judge may side with you on that.
    – Ron Beyer
    Aug 6 at 22:40






  • 1




    @Andy: miles not minutes; but the reasonableness of that restriction is up to the trier of fact, individuals can have differing opinions (for example, I practically do that commute every work day, and I don't find it unreasonable at all).
    – sharur
    Aug 6 at 23:25
















  • What does your company do and what services do they provide? What is your role (i.e. internal work or work for customers).
    – sharur
    Aug 6 at 19:26











  • I am a web Designer, and the company offers website design, software development, and IT services
    – Alex S.
    Aug 6 at 19:36










  • Unfortunately, I think the contract is likely to be upheld. You are potentially a direct competitor, so that's a legitimate business interest and their geographic and time restrictions seem reasonable.
    – sharur
    Aug 6 at 19:43







  • 2




    Just as a note in the future, I would not have signed this unless a clause was added to specifically restrict going after current customers, customers within the past 12 months, or customers with open bids at the time of termination. This means you won't work with their customers but you can still work. I think it is unreasonable to restrict all work in the field, and a judge may side with you on that.
    – Ron Beyer
    Aug 6 at 22:40






  • 1




    @Andy: miles not minutes; but the reasonableness of that restriction is up to the trier of fact, individuals can have differing opinions (for example, I practically do that commute every work day, and I don't find it unreasonable at all).
    – sharur
    Aug 6 at 23:25















What does your company do and what services do they provide? What is your role (i.e. internal work or work for customers).
– sharur
Aug 6 at 19:26





What does your company do and what services do they provide? What is your role (i.e. internal work or work for customers).
– sharur
Aug 6 at 19:26













I am a web Designer, and the company offers website design, software development, and IT services
– Alex S.
Aug 6 at 19:36




I am a web Designer, and the company offers website design, software development, and IT services
– Alex S.
Aug 6 at 19:36












Unfortunately, I think the contract is likely to be upheld. You are potentially a direct competitor, so that's a legitimate business interest and their geographic and time restrictions seem reasonable.
– sharur
Aug 6 at 19:43





Unfortunately, I think the contract is likely to be upheld. You are potentially a direct competitor, so that's a legitimate business interest and their geographic and time restrictions seem reasonable.
– sharur
Aug 6 at 19:43





2




2




Just as a note in the future, I would not have signed this unless a clause was added to specifically restrict going after current customers, customers within the past 12 months, or customers with open bids at the time of termination. This means you won't work with their customers but you can still work. I think it is unreasonable to restrict all work in the field, and a judge may side with you on that.
– Ron Beyer
Aug 6 at 22:40




Just as a note in the future, I would not have signed this unless a clause was added to specifically restrict going after current customers, customers within the past 12 months, or customers with open bids at the time of termination. This means you won't work with their customers but you can still work. I think it is unreasonable to restrict all work in the field, and a judge may side with you on that.
– Ron Beyer
Aug 6 at 22:40




1




1




@Andy: miles not minutes; but the reasonableness of that restriction is up to the trier of fact, individuals can have differing opinions (for example, I practically do that commute every work day, and I don't find it unreasonable at all).
– sharur
Aug 6 at 23:25




@Andy: miles not minutes; but the reasonableness of that restriction is up to the trier of fact, individuals can have differing opinions (for example, I practically do that commute every work day, and I don't find it unreasonable at all).
– sharur
Aug 6 at 23:25










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
5
down vote













Arizona recognizes non-compete agreements. Taser Intern., Inc. v. Ward, 231 P.3d 921 (2010) reflects the relevance of the existence non-compete agreement.



However, the mere existence of a non-compete clause does not guarantee it will be judicially enforced or recognized. The not-binding opinion Treeline Design Group, Inc. v. Gonshorowski reflects an instance where a covenant not to compete for two years [after termination of employment] is unreasonable and unenforceable. In line with the other answer, the Treeline decision states that




determining the reasonableness of a covenant not to compete is a
fact-intensive inquiry




For additional Arizona cases related to non-compete agreements, search for non-compete at leagle.com.






share|improve this answer




























    up vote
    3
    down vote













    You need to hire an attorney to deal with your specific situation. I won't offer a judgment of the likelihood that you would prevail in court, but I will point to some basic principles that suggest there could be a problem with the agreement. The case of Orca Communications Unlimited, LLC v. Noder is relevant for Arizona law. Some relevant principles spelled out in that case, with numerous citations are that




    "Restrictive covenants which tend to prevent an employee from pursuing
    a similar vocation after termination of employment are disfavored" and
    are strictly construed against the employer..A restrictive covenant is
    unreasonable and will not be enforced "(1) if the restraint is greater
    than necessary to protect the employer's legitimate interest; or (2)
    if that interest is outweighed by the hardship to the employee and the
    likely injury to the public."...The employer bears the burden of
    proving the extent of its protectable interest




    As described, the agreement doesn't just prohibit using existing contacts, or exploiting trade secrets, it prohibit a person from engaging in their profession within a 25 mile area.




    Non-compete and non-solicitation restrictions are enforceable if they
    are "no broader than necessary to protect the employer's legitimate
    business interest." An employer does have a legitimate interest in
    restraining a former employee "from appropriating valuable trade
    information and customer relationships" acquired during employment.
    But because an employer may not eliminate competition per se, a
    restrictive covenant that goes beyond protecting a legitimate business
    interest and prevents a former employee from using skills and talents
    learned on a former job is unenforceable







    share|improve this answer




























      up vote
      3
      down vote













      IANAL; I am not your lawyer. If you want specific legal advice, retain a lawyer.



      In general, non-compete clauses in employment contracts need four things (Arizona source: https://www.allenlawaz.com/non-competes-legal-arizona/):

      1) They need to be reasonable in their terms

      2) They need to be limited geographically

      3) They need to be limited temporally

      4) They need to be limited to "legitimate business interests".



      The contract described is limited both temporally and geographically (to two years and 25 miles, respectively).



      These limitations seem very reasonable to me (noting that a) I am not a lawyer, and b) I am from California, specifically Southern California, land of the freeway, and I commute 15-20 miles each way by choice, and it takes me about half an hour, which is mostly due to traffic, rather than distance), and likely to pass muster on those grounds. Note that I've looked up several "sample non-compete clauses" online to answer questions and two years duration is commonplace. It seems to be viewed as "not long enough to seriously affect one's career, but long enough that you won't immediately set up or join an adjacent competitor", which seems to be the point.



      Now, the last question is whether this non-compete serves a "legitimate business interest". You mentioned in the question that your work is primarily website design, which is something that can go in either direction, based on the nature of your work and the nature of you employer's business and offerings. If your work is internal (e.g. you work on your own company's website) and your employer's business products and/or services are unrelated to offering websites (e.g. they are a car dealership) then you are more likely to prevail. If your work is external, e.g. your company is in hosting or PR and they provide web design as a product or service, the less likely you are to prevail and the more likely the contract is to be upheld.



      Which category you are in is a question of fact for the finder of fact (judge or jury) to determine.



      EDIT: Based on your response to my comment query, it seems likely to be upheld, as you would (potentially be) a direct competitor.






      share|improve this answer























      • I haven't really looked at Arizona cases, but I don't think I've ever heard of any case anywhere that treats preventing direct competition as a legitimate business interest. Do you see any cases saying that would be enough?
        – bdb484
        2 days ago










      Your Answer







      StackExchange.ready(function()
      var channelOptions =
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "617"
      ;
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
      createEditor();
      );

      else
      createEditor();

      );

      function createEditor()
      StackExchange.prepareEditor(
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      convertImagesToLinks: false,
      noModals: false,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: null,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      );



      );








       

      draft saved


      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function ()
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flaw.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f30758%2fwill-my-employers-contract-hold-up-in-court%23new-answer', 'question_page');

      );

      Post as a guest






























      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes








      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes








      up vote
      5
      down vote













      Arizona recognizes non-compete agreements. Taser Intern., Inc. v. Ward, 231 P.3d 921 (2010) reflects the relevance of the existence non-compete agreement.



      However, the mere existence of a non-compete clause does not guarantee it will be judicially enforced or recognized. The not-binding opinion Treeline Design Group, Inc. v. Gonshorowski reflects an instance where a covenant not to compete for two years [after termination of employment] is unreasonable and unenforceable. In line with the other answer, the Treeline decision states that




      determining the reasonableness of a covenant not to compete is a
      fact-intensive inquiry




      For additional Arizona cases related to non-compete agreements, search for non-compete at leagle.com.






      share|improve this answer

























        up vote
        5
        down vote













        Arizona recognizes non-compete agreements. Taser Intern., Inc. v. Ward, 231 P.3d 921 (2010) reflects the relevance of the existence non-compete agreement.



        However, the mere existence of a non-compete clause does not guarantee it will be judicially enforced or recognized. The not-binding opinion Treeline Design Group, Inc. v. Gonshorowski reflects an instance where a covenant not to compete for two years [after termination of employment] is unreasonable and unenforceable. In line with the other answer, the Treeline decision states that




        determining the reasonableness of a covenant not to compete is a
        fact-intensive inquiry




        For additional Arizona cases related to non-compete agreements, search for non-compete at leagle.com.






        share|improve this answer























          up vote
          5
          down vote










          up vote
          5
          down vote









          Arizona recognizes non-compete agreements. Taser Intern., Inc. v. Ward, 231 P.3d 921 (2010) reflects the relevance of the existence non-compete agreement.



          However, the mere existence of a non-compete clause does not guarantee it will be judicially enforced or recognized. The not-binding opinion Treeline Design Group, Inc. v. Gonshorowski reflects an instance where a covenant not to compete for two years [after termination of employment] is unreasonable and unenforceable. In line with the other answer, the Treeline decision states that




          determining the reasonableness of a covenant not to compete is a
          fact-intensive inquiry




          For additional Arizona cases related to non-compete agreements, search for non-compete at leagle.com.






          share|improve this answer













          Arizona recognizes non-compete agreements. Taser Intern., Inc. v. Ward, 231 P.3d 921 (2010) reflects the relevance of the existence non-compete agreement.



          However, the mere existence of a non-compete clause does not guarantee it will be judicially enforced or recognized. The not-binding opinion Treeline Design Group, Inc. v. Gonshorowski reflects an instance where a covenant not to compete for two years [after termination of employment] is unreasonable and unenforceable. In line with the other answer, the Treeline decision states that




          determining the reasonableness of a covenant not to compete is a
          fact-intensive inquiry




          For additional Arizona cases related to non-compete agreements, search for non-compete at leagle.com.







          share|improve this answer













          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer











          answered Aug 6 at 19:48









          Iñaki Viggers

          1,22519




          1,22519




















              up vote
              3
              down vote













              You need to hire an attorney to deal with your specific situation. I won't offer a judgment of the likelihood that you would prevail in court, but I will point to some basic principles that suggest there could be a problem with the agreement. The case of Orca Communications Unlimited, LLC v. Noder is relevant for Arizona law. Some relevant principles spelled out in that case, with numerous citations are that




              "Restrictive covenants which tend to prevent an employee from pursuing
              a similar vocation after termination of employment are disfavored" and
              are strictly construed against the employer..A restrictive covenant is
              unreasonable and will not be enforced "(1) if the restraint is greater
              than necessary to protect the employer's legitimate interest; or (2)
              if that interest is outweighed by the hardship to the employee and the
              likely injury to the public."...The employer bears the burden of
              proving the extent of its protectable interest




              As described, the agreement doesn't just prohibit using existing contacts, or exploiting trade secrets, it prohibit a person from engaging in their profession within a 25 mile area.




              Non-compete and non-solicitation restrictions are enforceable if they
              are "no broader than necessary to protect the employer's legitimate
              business interest." An employer does have a legitimate interest in
              restraining a former employee "from appropriating valuable trade
              information and customer relationships" acquired during employment.
              But because an employer may not eliminate competition per se, a
              restrictive covenant that goes beyond protecting a legitimate business
              interest and prevents a former employee from using skills and talents
              learned on a former job is unenforceable







              share|improve this answer

























                up vote
                3
                down vote













                You need to hire an attorney to deal with your specific situation. I won't offer a judgment of the likelihood that you would prevail in court, but I will point to some basic principles that suggest there could be a problem with the agreement. The case of Orca Communications Unlimited, LLC v. Noder is relevant for Arizona law. Some relevant principles spelled out in that case, with numerous citations are that




                "Restrictive covenants which tend to prevent an employee from pursuing
                a similar vocation after termination of employment are disfavored" and
                are strictly construed against the employer..A restrictive covenant is
                unreasonable and will not be enforced "(1) if the restraint is greater
                than necessary to protect the employer's legitimate interest; or (2)
                if that interest is outweighed by the hardship to the employee and the
                likely injury to the public."...The employer bears the burden of
                proving the extent of its protectable interest




                As described, the agreement doesn't just prohibit using existing contacts, or exploiting trade secrets, it prohibit a person from engaging in their profession within a 25 mile area.




                Non-compete and non-solicitation restrictions are enforceable if they
                are "no broader than necessary to protect the employer's legitimate
                business interest." An employer does have a legitimate interest in
                restraining a former employee "from appropriating valuable trade
                information and customer relationships" acquired during employment.
                But because an employer may not eliminate competition per se, a
                restrictive covenant that goes beyond protecting a legitimate business
                interest and prevents a former employee from using skills and talents
                learned on a former job is unenforceable







                share|improve this answer























                  up vote
                  3
                  down vote










                  up vote
                  3
                  down vote









                  You need to hire an attorney to deal with your specific situation. I won't offer a judgment of the likelihood that you would prevail in court, but I will point to some basic principles that suggest there could be a problem with the agreement. The case of Orca Communications Unlimited, LLC v. Noder is relevant for Arizona law. Some relevant principles spelled out in that case, with numerous citations are that




                  "Restrictive covenants which tend to prevent an employee from pursuing
                  a similar vocation after termination of employment are disfavored" and
                  are strictly construed against the employer..A restrictive covenant is
                  unreasonable and will not be enforced "(1) if the restraint is greater
                  than necessary to protect the employer's legitimate interest; or (2)
                  if that interest is outweighed by the hardship to the employee and the
                  likely injury to the public."...The employer bears the burden of
                  proving the extent of its protectable interest




                  As described, the agreement doesn't just prohibit using existing contacts, or exploiting trade secrets, it prohibit a person from engaging in their profession within a 25 mile area.




                  Non-compete and non-solicitation restrictions are enforceable if they
                  are "no broader than necessary to protect the employer's legitimate
                  business interest." An employer does have a legitimate interest in
                  restraining a former employee "from appropriating valuable trade
                  information and customer relationships" acquired during employment.
                  But because an employer may not eliminate competition per se, a
                  restrictive covenant that goes beyond protecting a legitimate business
                  interest and prevents a former employee from using skills and talents
                  learned on a former job is unenforceable







                  share|improve this answer













                  You need to hire an attorney to deal with your specific situation. I won't offer a judgment of the likelihood that you would prevail in court, but I will point to some basic principles that suggest there could be a problem with the agreement. The case of Orca Communications Unlimited, LLC v. Noder is relevant for Arizona law. Some relevant principles spelled out in that case, with numerous citations are that




                  "Restrictive covenants which tend to prevent an employee from pursuing
                  a similar vocation after termination of employment are disfavored" and
                  are strictly construed against the employer..A restrictive covenant is
                  unreasonable and will not be enforced "(1) if the restraint is greater
                  than necessary to protect the employer's legitimate interest; or (2)
                  if that interest is outweighed by the hardship to the employee and the
                  likely injury to the public."...The employer bears the burden of
                  proving the extent of its protectable interest




                  As described, the agreement doesn't just prohibit using existing contacts, or exploiting trade secrets, it prohibit a person from engaging in their profession within a 25 mile area.




                  Non-compete and non-solicitation restrictions are enforceable if they
                  are "no broader than necessary to protect the employer's legitimate
                  business interest." An employer does have a legitimate interest in
                  restraining a former employee "from appropriating valuable trade
                  information and customer relationships" acquired during employment.
                  But because an employer may not eliminate competition per se, a
                  restrictive covenant that goes beyond protecting a legitimate business
                  interest and prevents a former employee from using skills and talents
                  learned on a former job is unenforceable








                  share|improve this answer













                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer











                  answered Aug 6 at 19:53









                  user6726

                  47.2k23680




                  47.2k23680




















                      up vote
                      3
                      down vote













                      IANAL; I am not your lawyer. If you want specific legal advice, retain a lawyer.



                      In general, non-compete clauses in employment contracts need four things (Arizona source: https://www.allenlawaz.com/non-competes-legal-arizona/):

                      1) They need to be reasonable in their terms

                      2) They need to be limited geographically

                      3) They need to be limited temporally

                      4) They need to be limited to "legitimate business interests".



                      The contract described is limited both temporally and geographically (to two years and 25 miles, respectively).



                      These limitations seem very reasonable to me (noting that a) I am not a lawyer, and b) I am from California, specifically Southern California, land of the freeway, and I commute 15-20 miles each way by choice, and it takes me about half an hour, which is mostly due to traffic, rather than distance), and likely to pass muster on those grounds. Note that I've looked up several "sample non-compete clauses" online to answer questions and two years duration is commonplace. It seems to be viewed as "not long enough to seriously affect one's career, but long enough that you won't immediately set up or join an adjacent competitor", which seems to be the point.



                      Now, the last question is whether this non-compete serves a "legitimate business interest". You mentioned in the question that your work is primarily website design, which is something that can go in either direction, based on the nature of your work and the nature of you employer's business and offerings. If your work is internal (e.g. you work on your own company's website) and your employer's business products and/or services are unrelated to offering websites (e.g. they are a car dealership) then you are more likely to prevail. If your work is external, e.g. your company is in hosting or PR and they provide web design as a product or service, the less likely you are to prevail and the more likely the contract is to be upheld.



                      Which category you are in is a question of fact for the finder of fact (judge or jury) to determine.



                      EDIT: Based on your response to my comment query, it seems likely to be upheld, as you would (potentially be) a direct competitor.






                      share|improve this answer























                      • I haven't really looked at Arizona cases, but I don't think I've ever heard of any case anywhere that treats preventing direct competition as a legitimate business interest. Do you see any cases saying that would be enough?
                        – bdb484
                        2 days ago














                      up vote
                      3
                      down vote













                      IANAL; I am not your lawyer. If you want specific legal advice, retain a lawyer.



                      In general, non-compete clauses in employment contracts need four things (Arizona source: https://www.allenlawaz.com/non-competes-legal-arizona/):

                      1) They need to be reasonable in their terms

                      2) They need to be limited geographically

                      3) They need to be limited temporally

                      4) They need to be limited to "legitimate business interests".



                      The contract described is limited both temporally and geographically (to two years and 25 miles, respectively).



                      These limitations seem very reasonable to me (noting that a) I am not a lawyer, and b) I am from California, specifically Southern California, land of the freeway, and I commute 15-20 miles each way by choice, and it takes me about half an hour, which is mostly due to traffic, rather than distance), and likely to pass muster on those grounds. Note that I've looked up several "sample non-compete clauses" online to answer questions and two years duration is commonplace. It seems to be viewed as "not long enough to seriously affect one's career, but long enough that you won't immediately set up or join an adjacent competitor", which seems to be the point.



                      Now, the last question is whether this non-compete serves a "legitimate business interest". You mentioned in the question that your work is primarily website design, which is something that can go in either direction, based on the nature of your work and the nature of you employer's business and offerings. If your work is internal (e.g. you work on your own company's website) and your employer's business products and/or services are unrelated to offering websites (e.g. they are a car dealership) then you are more likely to prevail. If your work is external, e.g. your company is in hosting or PR and they provide web design as a product or service, the less likely you are to prevail and the more likely the contract is to be upheld.



                      Which category you are in is a question of fact for the finder of fact (judge or jury) to determine.



                      EDIT: Based on your response to my comment query, it seems likely to be upheld, as you would (potentially be) a direct competitor.






                      share|improve this answer























                      • I haven't really looked at Arizona cases, but I don't think I've ever heard of any case anywhere that treats preventing direct competition as a legitimate business interest. Do you see any cases saying that would be enough?
                        – bdb484
                        2 days ago












                      up vote
                      3
                      down vote










                      up vote
                      3
                      down vote









                      IANAL; I am not your lawyer. If you want specific legal advice, retain a lawyer.



                      In general, non-compete clauses in employment contracts need four things (Arizona source: https://www.allenlawaz.com/non-competes-legal-arizona/):

                      1) They need to be reasonable in their terms

                      2) They need to be limited geographically

                      3) They need to be limited temporally

                      4) They need to be limited to "legitimate business interests".



                      The contract described is limited both temporally and geographically (to two years and 25 miles, respectively).



                      These limitations seem very reasonable to me (noting that a) I am not a lawyer, and b) I am from California, specifically Southern California, land of the freeway, and I commute 15-20 miles each way by choice, and it takes me about half an hour, which is mostly due to traffic, rather than distance), and likely to pass muster on those grounds. Note that I've looked up several "sample non-compete clauses" online to answer questions and two years duration is commonplace. It seems to be viewed as "not long enough to seriously affect one's career, but long enough that you won't immediately set up or join an adjacent competitor", which seems to be the point.



                      Now, the last question is whether this non-compete serves a "legitimate business interest". You mentioned in the question that your work is primarily website design, which is something that can go in either direction, based on the nature of your work and the nature of you employer's business and offerings. If your work is internal (e.g. you work on your own company's website) and your employer's business products and/or services are unrelated to offering websites (e.g. they are a car dealership) then you are more likely to prevail. If your work is external, e.g. your company is in hosting or PR and they provide web design as a product or service, the less likely you are to prevail and the more likely the contract is to be upheld.



                      Which category you are in is a question of fact for the finder of fact (judge or jury) to determine.



                      EDIT: Based on your response to my comment query, it seems likely to be upheld, as you would (potentially be) a direct competitor.






                      share|improve this answer















                      IANAL; I am not your lawyer. If you want specific legal advice, retain a lawyer.



                      In general, non-compete clauses in employment contracts need four things (Arizona source: https://www.allenlawaz.com/non-competes-legal-arizona/):

                      1) They need to be reasonable in their terms

                      2) They need to be limited geographically

                      3) They need to be limited temporally

                      4) They need to be limited to "legitimate business interests".



                      The contract described is limited both temporally and geographically (to two years and 25 miles, respectively).



                      These limitations seem very reasonable to me (noting that a) I am not a lawyer, and b) I am from California, specifically Southern California, land of the freeway, and I commute 15-20 miles each way by choice, and it takes me about half an hour, which is mostly due to traffic, rather than distance), and likely to pass muster on those grounds. Note that I've looked up several "sample non-compete clauses" online to answer questions and two years duration is commonplace. It seems to be viewed as "not long enough to seriously affect one's career, but long enough that you won't immediately set up or join an adjacent competitor", which seems to be the point.



                      Now, the last question is whether this non-compete serves a "legitimate business interest". You mentioned in the question that your work is primarily website design, which is something that can go in either direction, based on the nature of your work and the nature of you employer's business and offerings. If your work is internal (e.g. you work on your own company's website) and your employer's business products and/or services are unrelated to offering websites (e.g. they are a car dealership) then you are more likely to prevail. If your work is external, e.g. your company is in hosting or PR and they provide web design as a product or service, the less likely you are to prevail and the more likely the contract is to be upheld.



                      Which category you are in is a question of fact for the finder of fact (judge or jury) to determine.



                      EDIT: Based on your response to my comment query, it seems likely to be upheld, as you would (potentially be) a direct competitor.







                      share|improve this answer















                      share|improve this answer



                      share|improve this answer








                      edited Aug 6 at 20:08









                      brhans

                      2098




                      2098











                      answered Aug 6 at 19:39









                      sharur

                      1,554417




                      1,554417











                      • I haven't really looked at Arizona cases, but I don't think I've ever heard of any case anywhere that treats preventing direct competition as a legitimate business interest. Do you see any cases saying that would be enough?
                        – bdb484
                        2 days ago
















                      • I haven't really looked at Arizona cases, but I don't think I've ever heard of any case anywhere that treats preventing direct competition as a legitimate business interest. Do you see any cases saying that would be enough?
                        – bdb484
                        2 days ago















                      I haven't really looked at Arizona cases, but I don't think I've ever heard of any case anywhere that treats preventing direct competition as a legitimate business interest. Do you see any cases saying that would be enough?
                      – bdb484
                      2 days ago




                      I haven't really looked at Arizona cases, but I don't think I've ever heard of any case anywhere that treats preventing direct competition as a legitimate business interest. Do you see any cases saying that would be enough?
                      – bdb484
                      2 days ago












                       

                      draft saved


                      draft discarded


























                       


                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function ()
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flaw.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f30758%2fwill-my-employers-contract-hold-up-in-court%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                      );

                      Post as a guest













































































                      Popular posts from this blog

                      How to check contact read email or not when send email to Individual?

                      Displaying single band from multi-band raster using QGIS

                      How many registers does an x86_64 CPU actually have?